When Windows Vista was launched, the Free Software Foundation started its BadVista campaign, which was aimed at informing users about what the FSF considered user-restrictive features in Vista. Luckily for the FSF, Vista didn't really need a bad-mouthing campaign to fail. Now that Windows 7 is receiving a lot of positive press, the FSF dusted off the BadVista drum, and gave it a fresh coat of paint.

"So the user should have more control than the creator? Really? Why shouldn't the person who labors for his work be in control of it?

That's how it is now, and doesn't work too flash. Teams re-inventing the same stuff again and again for their own closed implementations of stuff.
"

Users perhaps should not dictate the software distribution scheme to the developer, but they should maintain control of their own machine, and of the software that they purchase to run on it. The software should cater to the user, not try to coerce the user into continuing to use the software.

At least for me, it's more that many closed-source projects try to usurp control of my computer, and limit what I can do with their software, in order to ensure their own survival and coerce me into continued patronage. I'm thinking about things like choosing closed file formats, so that people have to keep using the same vendor's software even after it gets eclipsed in price and performance, not supporting open formats (for the same reason), using DRM to control media or software use, etc. A large part of my dedication to Free Software isn't the vindictive desire to destroy closed-source software distribution, it's that I don't like my software telling me, "oh, sorry, you can't do that, because then you wouldn't be dependent on us anymore." I don't want to have to beseech software for permission to use it, after I've legitamately purchased it. Sorry if I'm crazy-rambling.